There’s a lot of talk today about imposing a coffee mandate on employers, including Mormon institutions which oppose the use of caffeine, because of the health benefits of coffee.

Not enough.

It must be a “good coffee” mandate.

We have something here that’s free and they call “coffee,” but the lab tests have not come back yet on whether it is coffee, chemically speaking. (Yes, I’ve seen the labels on the small bags containing the substance, but I’m not yet convinced.)

Even if I am currently receiving coffee benefits for free, I insist upon free good coffee, because to do otherwise would be to deprive me of choice.

The ironic part is that there is this wonderful alternative to coffee called ‘water’ that is in fact even more beneficial to your health and doesn’t cost any money. You just have to deal with the fact that its not as ‘fun’ as drinking coffee.

All of you are thinking inside the box. Consider the benefits of sex. Sex is heart healthy. Sex reduces stress, which in turn reduces obesity. Sex boosts immunity. Sex is good exercise, which has many of its own benefits. Sex is a pain-killer; the raise in endorphins reduces the need to take pain killers (otherwise known as schedule II drugs which doctors are imprisoned for prescribing too frequently). Sex reduces prostate cancer risk, reducing the epidemic of prostate cancer amongst older males. Sex helps you sleep better, which provides a host of benefits all on its own.

Given all of these provable health benefits, it is clear that we need another mandate–people are required to engage in sex twice a week. Even though some people are morally opposed to sex (nuns, priests, monks), their personal inclinations cannot stop reasonable efforts to improve the health of the population at large. And, anyway, most of those people will have had sex in their past so forcing them to have sex now doesn’t infringe on any truly held beliefs.

For those without intimate partners–or those whose partners are unavailable, such as because of work, travel, or hospitalization–I propose that the federal government extend AmeriCorps (pronounced “AmeriCore” for the foreigners reading this) to include sex workers. These workers would be paid to provide provable health benefits to American residents unable to arrange for sex on their own for the reasons listed above.

Sex is good exercise? Hmm, isn’t the current recommendation for 30-minutes vigorous cardiovascular activity 5 times a week? If you’re having sex for 30 minutes 5 times a weak, I’m in awe. Oh, by the way, chasing your partner around the room for 28 of those minutes doesn’t count as sex, foreplay perhaps, but not sex.

first of all, I didn’t claim that sex replaced all suggested physical activity, just added to it. And I think that foreplay does count. Maybe the AmeriCorps volunteers will add an extra 20 minutes of chasing to add up to a full 30 minute session.

So why aren’t there any brave GUYS “testifying” before these Potemkin “committees” about the lack of free condoms so support their recreational college life? Hmmm??? (A tad too risky for the average neutered Metro-sexual?)

As another weblog has pointed out, what about subsidies to support our Second Amendment “rights” as well? What about a nice, free little 357 Magnum or a 1911 .45? Or maybe just free access to an unlimited amount of ammunition?

After all, if the Gummint declares it’s “free” then there is absolutely no cost whatsoever for the free lunch, gahrohnteed. Reel intellijint eeeleetes (our inteelekchual and moral “betters”) have spoken and they all be such so much more gooder smarter that we knuckle-draggin’ bumpkins is.

We’ll all just pull a Linda Carter/Butterfly McQueen amalgam and flutter our little eyelashes while gushing forth our “don’t know nuthin’ ’bout [fill-in-the-blank]” professing our unquestioning deference to the wisdom of our Nanny State to take care of us.

Our government must mandate not only “good” coffee, but the most expensive coffee in the world. It’s called Kopi Luwak. What makes it so awesome? The coffee beans are first eaten by a rodent-like creature called a civet. Only after the civet defecates the beans are they gathered up and brewed. True story. Yummmmyy!

Can’t wait to get me some of that government mandated critter poop coffee.

I remember coffee. I had a half a cup back in 1985. Absolutely vile. (I had to stay awake all night to get some important work done, so someone suggested I turn to coffee. But the substance was so disgusting that I opted instead for the old thing called “will power” to make sure I finished my tasks.)

Somehow, hearing people say, “If I stop drinking it I’ll get headaches” fails to sell me on its “benefits.”

I totally agree with the coffee mandate…wonderful idea. I would like to add bacon to the mandate if I could. I read this on another blog, but it makes sense to me. I should be able to have my BLT whenever I want it, and I think restaurants and sandwich shops be required by government edict to serve my meat candy no matter what their religious beliefs are, and I would also like that bacon free. Since the price of bacon has gone so high, it puts a hardship on me to buy it. You can see the stress on my face from trying to manage my budget to afford those crisp slices of pork ecstasy, and I see the same stress on the faces of others I pass on the street. Anyone who opposes paying for my free bacon shall be scorned as waging a war on my taste buds.

My former employer provided free quality coffee, sodas and bottled water to all employees. As much as the employee wanted, no restrictions. The problem wasn’t in the lunch room, it was the disfunctional leadership at the top.

My goodness, how soon “we,” meaning you all, forget. Back in the early days of this here Republic, some states had state religions; I seem to recall that Virginia was one such state, perhaps endorsing the Episcopal Church.

Also, some histories have stated that there was a firearms mandate, requiring citizens to have a firearm and its ammunition on hand.

Update:
The dude (black) paid $1.50 then demanded money back because in his mind convenience store customers should only pay 1 dollar for a condom…

…I implore you to try to go into any store and demand a price roll back, argue create a ruckus, knock over some displays when you’re denied.
My guess is that you’ll be at minimum tasered by your local PD and dragged away in cuffs…

The store clerk fired two shots, one hit the man in the shoulder and his friends transported him to the hospital (don’t call 911 in Detroit, that’s the number to call if you’re in need for a tow truck and they’ll respond about as fast) where he died.
The friends and family of the man are engaged in a street protest boycott of the gas station, demanding the station close “out of respect” for the condom perp, the store has complied and shut down for few days.

I think you’re all thinking too small. Clearly it’s important for children to spend time with their parents, and we need more young ‘uns to pay for social security. So: as long as a parent has a child under 10, they should be given a stipend equal the max income they ever achieved, so they can stay home and emotionally nurture the child. And of course this should encourage more sex (as mentioned above, it has clear health benefits), plus more children (thus lowering long-term govt debt and allowing for more govt spending). Now I’m sure even the Liberals could get on board a program that encourages more sex and govt spending, all at the same time 🙂

Stop giving Obama ideas for more mandates! If your suggestion looks like it will help pull in another 10 or 20 voters, he’s going to act on it. As for paying for all of this, aren’t some of his people saying they need to figure out how to get gas to 8 dollars a gallon?

DocWahala
Today’s Fortune Cookie:
“Doc’s pack a day habit will pay for your cup of joe”

Great post. More and more Americans are flunking Freedom 101 because they confuse rights and entitlements. Poor schooling and the ignorant, biased media have muddled, or never conveyed, this distinction

The mistaking of entitlements for rights is all the more ironical because, in general, citizens lose rights in proportion to the number of entitlements they receive. Governments generate no wealth on their own, but must take it from private citizens or groups in the form of fees and taxation. So for one person or group to receive benefits from the government, another must be deprived of his most fundamental right, the right of private property